At the same time, U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Indialantic -- anxious about preserving shuttle jobs at KSC -- wants the agency to keep flying the shuttle until the next-generation spacecraft is ready to take its place.

_________________"The hardest hurdle to space isn't the technicalities and money. But rather, the courage and the will to do it." - Burt Rutan.

Why? Not that the shuttle-replacement is likely to be any better or cheaper, but come on. Are they that afraid of the Russians or any other country? Why not buy rocketrides? Are they gonna doom the COTS programm before they have even tried it?

There is the problem of the Soyuz not being able to carry enough people and supplies to support the full crew of 3. Remember when the Shuttle was grounded after the Columbia accident that they had to scale back to 2 crew members. Also I would think there are ITAR issues as well as just a desire not to "outsource" yet another component of our economy to a foreign country.

The real issue is costs.
Ares program has been pushed back and back because NASA doesn't have the money and won't till the Shuttle stops flying.
Besides it's too late to extend the life of the shuttle as the Space Shuttle Main Engine program has already begun winding down. Vote any funds to extend the shuttle and someone's going to be out there on the launch pad winding up this really big rubber band.

The one how has the last laugh, was the one with the best contingency plan...

Right now, for lifting heavy objects and large crews, the shuttle is the best option. Even though things might change quickly, at the moment, having the shuttle as backup doesn't sound like a bad idea if things change for the worse.

This is really a bad idea and has much more to do with safeguarding jobs and funneling money into various US states than maintaining manned space access.

I agree that it is not unreasonable to extend the shuttle's lifetime slightly (12-18 months) using the shuttle parts and spares currently on order or awaiting delivery, if NASA has not managed to complete all the flights it has scheduled by 2010. Extending its life by an additional 5 years is madness.

If this were to go ahead it would undermine the entire COTS initiative and make it almost impossible for those companies competing to get any private funding. The $10bn would be better spent creating another 20 COTS prizes.

_________________A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

I'm just wondering what people would say in 2013, if all (ok, I'm being negative right now, but we need to look at worst case scenario too) options fails, and no new people carrier has been launched, and the politic climate between "east and west" has changed for the worse, and the shuttles have been rusting in a hangar for 3 years...

I just want to say that I'm all for the new vehicles coming, but NASA, as a government agency, cannot ignore this possibility, and they need to adjust their plans accordingly. If we get a cheaper sollution launched by 2010, great! If not, keeping the shuttles on stand-by might not be such a bad idea. And if the launch happens, and is successful, then I'd think NASA would be quick to cut the backup-shuttles to divert the money for other things.

I'm just wondering what people would say in 2013, if all (ok, I'm being negative right now, but we need to look at worst case scenario too) options fails, and no new people carrier has been launched, and the politic climate between "east and west" has changed for the worse, and the shuttles have been rusting in a hangar for 3 years...

I just want to say that I'm all for the new vehicles coming, but NASA, as a government agency, cannot ignore this possibility, and they need to adjust their plans accordingly. If we get a cheaper sollution launched by 2010, great! If not, keeping the shuttles on stand-by might not be such a bad idea. And if the launch happens, and is successful, then I'd think NASA would be quick to cut the backup-shuttles to divert the money for other things.

If they can't pay for it, they shouldn't have it. That is a fact for every person on this planet. Not that the replacement will be any cheaper, but it can hopefully solve at least the safety issue.

Or perhaps by 2013, SpaceX and Armadillo and perhaps others will be able to provide the sort of launch services NASA will require......rather than NASA having to DIY it.

I'm all for that, just look at the 2nd paragraph.

However, "perhaps" is not good enough for a government agency. If they'd been left with no alternatives, that would be a larger set back for them, than having wasted a few bn. dollars on a backup plan that wasn't needed.